tv U.S. Senate CSPAN January 14, 2013 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
and a brief history of personal lives there is a story that was written in the book that tells the history of smith & wesson, one of the largest gun manufacturers, handgun manufacturers in the united states that occurred in the 18 eighties in which with d.b. wesson, one of the founding partners of smith & wesson heard a story that the smith & wesson revolver was used by a child, when the child of the revolver to injure somebody. d.b. wesson found that unacceptable, so he told his son, joe wesson to design a child proof gun and the gun you see on the screen is the gun that joe wesson designed. if you look where the red arrow is, that is what is called the grip safety with. it is on the rearmost part of the gun that would have to be
depressed by this area of your hand. my physician friends have taught me that is the eminence of the hand which i at first felt would be a middle eastern ruler. [laughter] but what this what fleshey part but have to push down the middle lever in order for the trigger to be told, and what smith & wesson called and said in this marketing material went to the smithsonian institute and we found their marketing materials from the 18 eighties they said and this is a quote common no ordinary child under the age of eight can possibly discharge the gun. they thought the child's hand was too small and also not strong enough to push down the lever on the back of the gun at the same time as pulling the
trigger. fast forward many decades until the 1970's, and you have a story of a man whose name was fox who got a permit and him what to create the carving that has a combination lock where you see the blue arrow with a combination. and again, i am grateful to dr. steve for giving me this slide. secure a symbol combination, the kind of things that used to be on attache cases people used to carry around the cases you have a thousand different possibilities for a combination with the thought that this is going to make the gun powerful by the person who understands
what the combination is and remembers what the combination is, the gun wouldn't be readily operable by people who are not aware of the combination. there were other devices that were used. for instance, here is a handgun that has a lock and key device to read as the product endorsement not endorsing not endorsing this project and i am taking a risk of here because this is being broadcast by c-span, i understand, and there is a slight chance that my sister is watching this but my sister used to have a diary that had a little walk on it and those don't always work as designed. but at least this is showing you
that the manufacturer in this case, the manufacturer in this case felt that there was a risk of having unauthorized people able to fire the gun so that it went to the trouble of making this kind of somewhat rudimentary personalized device. i will show you one more. so, something like this doesn't require any electronics. there is no battery in the gun. think of it, how many products do we have nowadays that don't have bunds with your ancient consumer products that don't have electronics in them. but we went to undergraduates in the engineering school of johns hopkins, and i think it was 1992 and we said here's $2,000, 1992,
$2,000 meant something. we sit here is $2,000 here is a gun that we've got to get we made sure that the gun was inoperable. but we said to them to make us a personalized guns. this is what they came up with. i've always thought that this is probably the greatest idea for gun control if people had to carry this around with them. [laughter] but what this used was a touch memory system, so this would be incorporated into a piece of jewelry would have to touch this in order for a motor in the gun to remove something that blocked the firing mechanism of the gun. so obviously no one was going to manufacture a gun that looked just like this. but if our idea was it senior
engineering students could do this with $2,000, then surely the smith & wesson, the other major handgun manufacturers in the united states should be doing something that could make a person done operable with. let me as fast forward to the modern technology with personalized guns. as of the suffering of electronics into guns and if you only remember one thing that i tell you in the short time that i have since this time it says time is up to it used to be when we talked about personalized guns that we would say there is great promise that this would have been very soon. we no longer have to say that because these bonds are here with us now.
this is a company called orman -- armitix from germany and we have the people here with us today. this done has been approved by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. this gun is being sold presently in europe and the gun is ready to be here in the united states. the gun he uses a technology and actually it can use a mixture of technology that employ both radiofrequency and biometric edification, by a letcher identification like reading a fingerprint. this is a gun that would work back with authorized users what.
to going to the details of how saddam will work this is for sale now in europe. another gun that is designed by the trigger smart and i don't know if robert mcnamara is in this room over there, trigger smart which is an irish company also uses radio frequency, identification in an instant the gun recognizes whether it is in the hands of the authorized user and has a very small tag that is embedded in a piece of jewelry, wrist watch there is a leader of the gun if that tag is radiofrequency tag in close proximity if it's not in close
proximity what we need now is the policy in the united states that will foster the personalization. daniel and i and others more recently last friday had a meeting with the attorney general of the united states who is representing the vice president's biden task force on guns. the meeting was dedicated essentially talking about gun technology and more particularly talking about personalization devices. i believe that the attorney general of the united states based upon what he said at the end of the meeting which was that he was going to leave the meeting and that he was going to block from the eisenhower executive offices over the short walk to the white house and he was going to tell the president about this and he said to us
when the president speaks which i believe will be thursday he said was a closely because the president will be saying things that you all said and in the meeting that we had with the i have great optimism that we are going to see a change in guns. is that going to reduce gun deaths to a tiny amount? no, it's not going to do that, but something that we learned in public health is you take your benefits when and where you can get them and you've cherished them even if they do not totally eliminate the problem, so when he shows you the traumatized victims, antibiotics are not going to help that person very much, but because antibiotics don't help, that doesn't mean we want to give of antibiotics. airbags in cars won't help you with a rear end collision before
the air bag in your car in the frontal collision personalized guns are not going to eliminate gun deaths in the united states there a way to eliminate enough in the united states once we start selling personalized guns. once we start considering policies that require that all new guns must be personalized they are going to eliminate enough deaths but they are quick to be well warranted on the effort of having accomplished this over the past 30 years would be applauded ultimately. thank you very much. [applause] >> okay. we are going to open up to question and answer for about 15 minutes. and i would like to ask steve if he would moderate the session. >> i will do it here so i can see better to reduce the but i
was told the people that were sitting in the center of the auditorium have begun to wind because they haven't been recognized when they raise their hands. preferentially is their someone in the center of the auditorium who want to ask a question? >> i have a question. >> but i don't know where you are. >> i'm right here. >> the epicenter of the auditorium. >> my name is sandra and i would like to think you for putting this together. i'm actually a trauma surgeon in delaware and i want to direct my question to dr. cornwell terrie we are experiencing a crisis in wilmington just like we are in philadelphia and baltimore, and we are trying to develop a gun violence prevention program that finds the barriers with hippa having some issues with trying to implement a program that's actually going to be comprehensive and valuable.
can use to to how currently we can accomplish that goal, and then also can you please speak to some measurement tools that we can use to provide data so that we can help solve this problem? >> insightful question and congratulations for taking on a difficult undertaking because this is not weeks or months, it's yours. it's going to take a significant part of your career but even if it is in hippa, it refers to patients and if it is trying to reduce violence, to identify the patient i think it is an uphill battle to revive and prevention programs within the trauma center based on someone being identified because they were shot is like giving swimming lessons from the bottom of the pool. i think there's enough identifiers for what's at risk that you're white coat gives you
some credibility in certain areas that i evolves to the thinking of the programs that rely on people surviving the first gunshot wound means it depends on the trajectory of a bullet that goes straight through here and they are dead and even those that come to the emergency department that don't lie on your team because they had a trend wound in your attached my area they identified those at risk. secondly, then to be placed what's in their culture which is that of the glamorizing violence with a more reality based, and i think it important collaboration i've learned being here at hopkins is not necessarily just clinicians, but that local
entertainer athlete who cares a lot more with the patient some. >> thank you to get other questions? yes, please. >> henry of baltimore. my understanding i know we were not going to get to this today but my anderson is the strategy is that at a great deal of expense have been attacked as being against the second amendment. how long does the personalization add to the cost of an individual gun? >> so, i asked that yesterday foie of the ceo here in the audience and the major stockholder of the the company and the answer is that it would increase -- once you get economies of scale going it will increase the cost of the gun ten to 20%.
>> i work here at the school for public health. i just had a comment about the large capacity magazines. i was in a discussion with some friends of mine who are law abiding gun enthusiasts about the large capacity magazines and they said you can ban the 40 round magazines, but they said if i wanted to kill a lot of people i could just have 310 round magazines i could pop onto my weapon. i saw some of the logic of what they were saying to the i guess my comment and my question would be it's a little hard for me to feel like we can make reasonable decent progress in reducing gun deaths when we live in a country where someone so many people think it is fair the
constitutionally given right to own a machine that fires projectiles designed to kill large numbers of people. how are we going to make qualitative progress when we have so many people in such a large lobbying industry for the gun manufacturers that support that idea? thank you. >> a fi in the first comment. we are already making progress because ten years ago, 15 years ago, if there was a conversation in the school about large capacity magazines, we would have been talking about jama. [laughter] you know, reticent in the presence of an attorney to say how we should enter this debate but let me take a shot since you've seen so well on our innocence.
you heard from both doctors on the data that we have on the clinical database is that if you allow the debate to be just restricting access to these military-style weapons will decrease the numbers, the 31,000 members of which only one or 2% in many cities are represented. ten years from now it will expire and some will say ah-ha and didn't decrease the numbers. i'm hopeful that this week even tomorrow what i've heard from my surgical colleagues that 15 years from now wouldn't have been in a unanimous resolution and advisory group, the geographically diverse groups that includes not just those military-style weapons which is a small drop in the bucket, but mental health and background checks and our whole discussion about what sort of videos are
watching that entire thing. if you allow it to just be -- you heard that answer i can get three guns and kill 30 people that way i often wonder okay then we won't pursue the ban on a military weapon. it cannot -- i don't think that we can allow it to be just on that narrow focus. i've heard now people over the last couple of weeks on the political spectrum say we are interested in this conversation if it is a comprehensive approach, and i think we have a rare opportunity to do that. >> thank you triet chris, did you want to comment on the possibilities of the large capacity magazines? >> sure. i will make a few other comments. even if you have a large capacity magazine man, you may not be able to prevent all mass shootings that occurred. there may be some cases where offenders might have multiple magazines or firearms in half the time and the point is to
reload quickly, but you are certainly making it difficult every time they have to stop to reload their is an opportunity a few moments for other people to get away your for them to be overtaken by of the people at the scene and in fact there's been in some of these mass shooting incidents offenders have sometimes been overtaken when they finally had to stop and reload. and then beyond that, too it comes back to a political decision. no one can have everything they want. there is no right without limitations, and politically democratically we have to find the right balance between, you know, different perspectives and arriving at these policies. >> question, yes, please. >> i'm glad we have the gun manufacturers in the audience. my question is this. we heard from the discussion earlier arriving at the crime scenes and picking up the shell casings and chasing them back to particular pieces of munition that in some cases have been
used in 14 different crimes and states in a 12-month period of time. if we have car manufacturers who can make is an enjoyable function piece of the car machinery a microchip that can allow on star to remotely turn off a car so that i can't use a define intoxicated or someone else can steal it, why is it that in addition to personalizing these weaponry, why is it that if we know what guns have been used in several crimes but we cannot get the guns and we know there are many thousands, tens of thousands of these why can't we have guns manufactured with microchips in in them and that will allow once they've been used just once in a crime to be deactivated remotely by the police?
that is a much higher level of technology. >> while there are technological challenges to bringing guns into the 21st century because they have many people now that are essentially the guns used more than a century ago i don't believe that technological challenges are the greatest challenges. i don't believe that the problems and the difficulties of creating the technology have been keeping the gun manufacturers from changing the design of bombs. i believe that what keeps the manufacturers from changing the design of guns is the same thing again to use a car analogy when we try to get air bags into cars, the car manufacturers that are going to be opposed they opposed it so much when
ultimately the united states supreme court said for the last 15 years there's been the regulatory equivalent of the war which by the car manufacturers against the air bags. what we need to understand the ways that they were not really waging a war against the air bags. they were waging a war mike against regulation. and i believe the same thing is true about guns, not that we regulate the design of guns now. we don't unfortunately, but i think that the gun manufacturers are worried that if we put something has a gun as we change the design of the gun so the police can better detect the person that shot the gun was or the gun isn't going to fire for someone who is an unauthorized user that will lead to regulation of the design of guns and that's something that the gun industry absolutely doesn't
want. so your question also has a technical component to it but more importantly than the technical component is the political aspect of this, but we've never before been in the place that we are right now in history where essentially there's a perfect storm that may be a good store room for us, but the storm includes technological led advances. the storm includes so sadly the tragedies that have been happening, and most importantly, the tragedy that happened in connecticut which in turn is giving politicians both the will and the courage that they don't seem to have for a very long time.
so, those elements together. we believe we are going to see changes not only in the design of guns, but in regulating the design of guns so stay tuned for that. one more question? >> steve. i am an activist and i want to sort of response to the question about the danger of the nra and the gun manufacturers and so on to face these people before in various states in california and new jersey and other states and we won and we can win again, and cheeks constituencies, every constituency to be involved with this the face community, seniors, students and so on, but i agree with you. now is the time for all those constituencies to come together and to start working for change. and i think -- i agree with you
that it is time to do it. >> bryan miller runs an organization called keating and broad's call and the organization called a cease-fire new jersey, and it was bryan miller who is actually the individual that about the law passed in new jersey quite some time ago that said as soon as the first child for four personalized using those to some honestly the gun is available on the market that three years from that date all new handguns sold in new jersey would have to be child for four personalized. take that with what i've said about robert mcnamara's gun, about armtek and that's why i tend to have optimism that we are going to see new jersey's all getting triggered so to speak very soon, and once that
happens i think that other states will be emboldened to pass the law like new jersey. our time is up and we want to thank you very much for staying with us. [applause] >> this conference on reducing gun violence we will not overwrite programming on c-span and putting the maryland governor martin o'malley and the mayor michael blumberg. and as always, you can see all of the story on c-span.org. we are going to live to capitol hill. the committee is meeting to discuss the guidelines on
hurricane sandy disaster aid. to come before the house tomorrow pity if the committee will decide how long of the debate will be and what amendments will be allowed to read the funding is being debated in two parts. first a $17 billion then an amendment with an additional $33.7 billion mostly for longer-term projects. congressional quarterly rights many gop conservatives were to reduce or e eliminate much of the funding or cut other federal spending as offsets. this committee got started about half an hour ago, and speaking right now is a democrat on the committee from florida. >> smaller disasters that don't meet the standards of that large and awesome disaster like sandy. but you know something, when a person loses their house in our tornado that's a complete disaster to them. somewhere along the line we need to be thinking about what can we do to help people in those
situations? the creative thing to do just to test it would be to have a voluntary check off on their income tax return. we do these kinds of things in florida, florida power and light company has others i am sure subscribe to it to help people who can't meet their needs to be it would be a good test run to see and then in future disasters we would have an opportunity to know what exactly, how many people really are mindful, never were -- never mind the work climate change. you tell me if something is wrong with this disaster and houston texas has more snow than chicago and illinois. something is upside down in many respects. chairman sessions, you and others on the rules of the
committee and mr. bishop i believe on one occasion have heard me argue that we need to do exactly what the japanese government does. they know that they are going to have earthquakes and in light of that what they have done is established inside of their diet a specific committee that deals disasters so that you can move it hurriedly. we have this process. i have seen it good and bad in this regard, or katrina, the initiative that came out with a failure of initiative. we did, however, moved $50 billion in that one in ten days. there are now three of us here from florida and my colleague and i experienced hurricane andrew, and there for every one of the sky every last one of us in this body ought to be trying
to think ahead not just now but how can we do the things that are necessary, and i do accuse some members of the party of having an agenda when they start talking about all things like that that are going to further delay. i was proud there was one young man i saw on television that did go up to new jersey and actually ignored the fact that when his disaster struck he had gotten the funds for it, but when he saw it all of a sudden he changed his mind. that is politically convenient but the simple fact of the matter is all of us have seen these things. i have personal feelings about that that are relative in the area that i know. i grew up in queens and in atlantic city. to see the boardwalk gone my dad and my mom and by one christmas lost our boardwalk and to see those things gone is hurtful to
me as a person. so i take my responsibilities here very seriously when it comes to the individuals having to been harmed. we need to be very mindful of that we are talking about people and they are wondering what in the world is it that we do down here that really does help people if we get what we are capable of moving and not bringing in the senate bill to the floor because ostensibly somebody says there were supposed to be a fork. whatever came from the senate that didn't have a fork in it? what ever goes out of here that doesn't have something that is special for somebody. thank you, chairman rogers for the $35 million in here for florida's beaches and lift off the plane today i looked down and see my lady friend of the time that i'm betting on the war those beaches are eventually
going to overtake not in my lifetime that the lifetime of younger people here you won't be going to south beach, you will be going to south east -- south beach west. in some time as we stand up and face the harsh realities of disaster whether we call it climate change or whether we call it hot and cold the simple fact of the matter is we owe it to the people the new jersey and new york and connecticut and elsewhere and we know what to ourselves to be mindful of the numerous disasters that are on the horizon because we can't predict what we can prepare for, and if we don't, then we will be doing ourselves a terrible disservice. thank you. >> thank you the chairman. >> thank you mr. schramm. i will add my welcome. i will tell you, it is always one of the great pleasures of my week when it's been a tough week lots of controversy and
frustration on capitol hill when i would see mr. rogers come in here together generally they agreed on more than they disagreed on, they disagreed on it in a way that lifted me up instead of set me back, and i look forward to that as well. let me ask you in that context we heard warnings from the ranking member about unnecessary delays and the gentleman from massachusetts that talked about lots of the amendments in the process. the judge lamb from florida asked about why it is that it is moving in multiple pieces. but i heard the chairman say she has no expectation that this initial, i.c.e. initial, the second trauma since last week's vote in the first to launch the 17 billion would be the end of the road. this is yet another step in trying to responsive we get this money to folks absolutely as fast as we can. thinking about forming a rally around those things that we
agree on instead of focusing on those things that disagree, i know that you took the chairman at his word in fact in your presentation you said you hoped that there would be additional opportunity down the road to include those things. why aren't we getting all of the admonitions from the colleagues about the way and the urgency why aren't we rallying around the chairman's proposal as that which we know we can do today putting that money into the hands of those that need it desperately and then coming and back again as the chairman has committed and making sure the rest gets done, too >> thank you for your kind words and i know that we will not disappoint you. we hope to continue to work together as partners. i know we will i am around mr. rogers amendment and i am also rallying around mr. freeman's amendment because as i said, it is all essential.
when you have a catastrophe such as sandy, tunnels have flooded, people can't get to work, many restaurants were put out of business. people who were working in those restaurants were the stores but it is in westchester county or connecticut or pennsylvania when you have to plan ahead for rebuilding giving these people back their livelihood, their lives, their homes, their businesses, hospitals like nyu have to plan ahead. you can't sign contracts, you can't make plans unless all the money is there. as the chairman rogers and i know, that doesn't mean all this money is going to go out the door. there is a lot of accountability in this bill, and we look through every line and the bill made decisions as to what we
could live with and what they couldn't live with. so, unless this commitment is there, unless this congress agrees this is the amount we are going to spend in an emergency situation as we did with katrina and 36 other catastrophes, we can't move ahead. so i think it's important for us that have worked with appropriations as mr. kohl has done for many years. we understand that every dollar doesn't go out the door immediately, but the commitment has to be there. and then when the notification goes out, we make sure that every dollar is accounted for because we appreciate the generosity of the american people specifically this congress and responding to an estimate let me ask you this because you have experience on the appropriations committee that i don't. one of the things i love about
your committee is that you almost always, whether it is republican chairman or democratic chairman come to the rules committee and ask for an open rule for the consideration of your legislation. you see as a committee we have done the very best that we can do, that if any of the other four injured 35 members out there think that they can have something to it to improve in some way, we welcome that for a vote on the floor of the house and i love that about your committee to read you are the only committee in congress and it comes with that. we did our best but we welcome your suggestions, too. i might agree with all that you've had to say. it's a balancing that but it's the urgency that i know it exists in this circumstance. i would welcome an open rule on the $60 billion worth of aid and in my part of the world in georgia we may be the smartest stayed in the cotton belt, but our annual budget is less than $20 billion. so the constituents that have
called, the constituents that have gone out of their pocket to write a check to the red cross because this has affected them at a personal level as it did mr. hastings, folks that have gone out of their pocket to write a check to the salvation army because they know that they have neighbors and that is to be or as a people, it's one thing to get 17 billion out the door without the scrutiny of an open process, but to give 60 billion out the door without scrutiny is another order of magnitude. do you not share my conflict that if we have an urgent need, let's agree on that number and get it out the door with haste? if we have a giant need then let's give it a small and thoughtful scrutiny that we offer to folks back home. >> first of all, i appreciate your kind words about the appropriations process, and we won't let you down.
but i also appreciate the wisdom of the rules committee, and i know that you will judiciously to go through all of the 92 amendments and mcginn decision as to how many of those amendments are constructively presented to this committee and hope to really help responding to the disaster of sandy. now i've looked through those amendments as well and some could improve the bill but i can assure you that we have all worked the new york delegation, the new jersey delegation, the connecticut delegation worked with the governors, governor christie and governor cuomo and the makers that have direct responsibility. and many of these members are
not constructively help to the repair of the city and all of the cities that have been impacted by this. >> mr. chairman i appreciate the point the gentleman is making, this being a huge request. 60 billion-plus. on her katrina we also did to john choose on katrina but did it very rapidly. because of that we had to go back later and resend some 23 billion that we have appropriated that wasn't needed. so that is what we are trying to avoid here, but i am trying to avoid is not having the same kind of situation we had with katrina. we have to go back in and retrieved some $23 billion which is no small amount of money.
number two, there's been some delay on this because it is such a huge request and we were scoring of the numbers trying to understand it and justify. we have to justify every dollar that we recommend that you spend. in the meantime though, the disaster relief fund was already there. every year we appropriate a certain amount of money for the disaster relief fund to cover the immediate needs of the disaster like this one. this year there were some 11 plus billion dollars to date the disaster relief fund has a balance of about 3.5 billion. so they have spent down from 11 plus down to that figure. and so far, fema has been able
to reword the states a total of 3.1 billion for the immediate needs that have been taking place while we were carrying amendments work has received $1.69 billion worth new jersey almost connecticut 38 plus million and so on for a total of 3.1 billion that has already been given to the states for their immediate needs. my bill would take care of the next step. it would give us time comes several months that we provide money for the real long-term needs. >> if i may again, and i appreciate your questions, and again this with great respect to
the chairman, katrina mauney find out if i remember correctly but hundred nine days. is already over 70 days. there are people who are out of work, there are people without homes, there are communities that didn't even get their heat back on before i think it was about ten days ago. and again, when you are talking about a huge transportation system, when you are talking about tunnels that were filled with water preventing people from new jersey to come into work in manhattan, and i assure we will discuss that with other members of the delegation are we going to repair those towels? how are you going to make sure that your transportation system functions? how do you respond to people that have lost their entire livelihood, their homes by? so again, it's not as if when
this passes, and this would be very grateful if it passes as requested because we think it is so essential, it's not as if the check is written on the first day, but with the commitment of the united states of america those who were working as part of the partnership between the federal government and the local to make plans and commitments to move ahead we can't plan on appearing and all the mitigation necessary just on taking one part of it on a huge transportation the way folks respond to their neighbors in their times of need and again all the checks the folks from metro atlanta to send to people they've never met in new york
and new jersey one. it's those very same people that write those checks before calling and writing to my office with if you do non-billion next week the chairman proposed a 17 billion today and and now you are talking about doing even more tomorrow. with to see you know what i may not know everything there is to know about the hurricane but i know it didn't impact you all in the island. why is there funding for opportunities for those folks in here? >> we can put it in the bill if you like. >> that is what is frustrating to me is that here in the body
of the politics create cynicism. we create it. it doesn't exist naturally in the communities back home. we created and common we have an opportunity with the chairman to make certain that we get dollars out the door to make certain that we don't do one thing to further that cynicism back home that folks are profiting from other family tragedies. i wish that we could rally of and that and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the spirit that has been talked about is very much alive and i hope that you sense that this committee does have great we care very much about the people impacted here and the word that i hear chairman rogers and you and the committee is talking about people, the people we care about. i previously lived in new jersey. i do admit that i'm thinking
about running may be in a couple of years based upon how he does with this bill -- i'm kidding, rodney. i know people the and it does make a difference with how we talk about it as you suggest. >> thank you. in the last in colorado and states like mr. bishop's state and others that were to be impacted by the hurricane, we have disasters and particularly last summer we had a disastrous wildfire. they were presidentially declared disasters with emergency assistance and they touched the lives of many of our friends who will testify about his amendment and myself and others.
many people we know our friends and. my home was under evaluation we had to be prepared. for different forms and different areas and are spreading disasters in the mountains of with hundreds of families would never be able to recover anything from their homes. i visited some of those and it remains nothing is left. in the aftermath of the emergency watershed protection act program provides funding and support to restore and stabilize soil and water shed and mitigate flood risk in fact saving money in the long term, one of the most immediate dangers after the fire is the risk of floods and damage to the watershed that could cause untold additional damage. the national resource
conservation service estimated that colorado needs 19.8 million in emergency watershed protection funding. that's just for the fire ravaged areas, and i know there were a number of members on both sides of the idle during the fighters talked to myself and said how are your districts, how are you doing? i think that many had to fly home early. one week we were here it was a disaster. mr. gardner and myself visited the command center that was fighting the fires and there was another set right here in the district that threatened the second biggest city in the state of colorado came right to the doorstep and there were evacuation warnings as well. members of the delegation said that the president expressed the importance of the funding and the senate version was passed provide the emergency water should protection agency to all of the states that need funding including colorado. there were fires across the west
began keep in mind a take on different forms and while i do not think that colorado or wyoming were utah will ever have a hurricane, this was a disastrous summer in terms of forest fires and frankly it was wrong for the house to remove the fired recovery funding for the emergency supplemental. that's why the representatives gardner has brought forth when he talks about this committee. but i -- ridgely co-sponsored by the way with all the republicans in the delegation are the co-sponsors of that bill as well of the amendment, but the question i posed is how could we work with you to include this and while it is not included in the manager's amendment, can we include this as a stand-alone item and let the house clerk? there is a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers. it's very little money and it's a disaster that i know everybody has reached out to us personally
and this is something the would prevent the additional disaster in the form of flooding and damage in the watershed and that is a question i will pose to you and we will be able to talk more about the substance when mr. gardner testifies by this certainly hope to can encourage the committee to make this amendment in order. mr. rogers? >> as we've said, this bill is sandy only. we try to get this immediate catastrophe that's in place in the northeast. so we cut everything out of my bill except sandy. now, we have some to under $16 million in the regulatory process last year for the emergency watershed program, which the gentleman refers to that was in the 2012 agriculture
appropriations bill. so there has been money in that fund. i can't tell you where it stands today. however, the administration has not requested additional money for that program to address the disasters that fall under the stafford act. so we would respond if we had the request. >> again, this was in the senate bill that passed the administration supported the house should have passed that would have been told that would have actually deployed the resources already on the street. so i don't think there's a question of administrative support as far as i am aware and would be happy to get a statement from the administration to that effect. i've never heard of that problem before. there isn't the money there. if that's what you are saying there is regular funding for this program but we had a disaster, declared disaster in
colorado and the disasters are disasters and i don't want dhaka that equivalency i know the suffering of the constituents we can't compare but again i have hundreds of families and mr. gardner and others that lost everything they have in a disaster. the funds are depleted our delegation doesn't happen to be as big as the new york delegation and i hope we do not decide based on that because i would hope you can encourage the committee to allow the house to work on this amendment. >> i certainly believe that communities affected by a wildfire deserve our help and i would be very supportive. my fundamental responsibility is getting this bill through as fast as we can because it is over 70 days as of now. but i certainly think you have an urgent need a fundamental responsibility of the government to respond to the disasters such as this. >> i would encourage the chair to allow this amendment and i know that mr. gardner will talk about a compelling case that this will delay by the ten
minutes it takes to debate the amendment and maybe two minutes or five minutes for a vote. so i hope that our colorado families that lost their homes and 15 minutes would take this body to deliberate and help prevent and we will talk more in the substance about that when mr. gardner testifies and i will yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman and ranking member, i appreciate being here and coming from the state of florida, and as the members that sit on this body from the state of florida, we certainly understand disasters. living in a peninsula like we do, we dodge them all the time, sometimes we are not so fortunate to dodge them and we catch them. a sheriff and a local official in regards to dealing with natural disasters, and you just never know when it is cleaned strike you. and new york i think new jersey was a perfect example of not knowing what's going to happen.
i guess i'm just a little confused, and i am sympathetic to the plight in regards to the wildfire that ravaged their areas. obviously not of their causing. why was there -- and this is a question because -- why was that not covered underneath that disaster declaration for the president made in coming back to this body in response to those funds or was it? >> will the gentleman yield? >> was a disaster area that freed up the existing funds for the use. now this is nothing to do with the funds for fighting the fires of the time and some of the immediate work. what we are doing now was a particular fund that has additional money. the emergency watershed protection act. so again without emergency funding is necessary because the fires and the money wouldn't be there to prevent the soil
erosion and additional damage. >> what the gentleman yield? >> the disaster relief fund of money can't be used for any presidentially declared a disaster in putting the colorado fire matter so the disaster relief funds are for that very purpose. >> i guess what i eat to see is when you have a disaster like sandy, other things get loaded into it because i guess it's just, you know, it's their. erosion is and a big deal to allow the folks what occurred with sandy and the devastation that occurred in new york and new jersey and connecticut and other areas. it's on tv, it's obvious that destruction is there. but i don't want to see happen is that it's the lead because of other add-ons, and i do worry
about the fact that these are always supplementals and it's the dollars we don't have to start with and i think that is what everybody is concerned with as we move forward, but we do have to be there to reach out and protect our folks. how do we do that in the future? we know that we are going to get struck with natural disasters. you can go back in time of the last ten years and average about. how did we ever get to the point that we at least budget for the bottom line seven need a supplemental like sandy it goes above and beyond how do we ever get to that point, or do we? >> in the budget control act, we provided a piece of machinery that we thought would handle most occasions both disasters. ..
so called average disaster requiring more money than we anticipated, obviously. nevertheless, that 11 plus billion has been available and is available for any disaster that is declared by the president including the colorado wild fires. that fund is now down to, as i said before, $3.6 billion as of the last few days. obviously not enough to cover all of the disasters that we're having to cover. so thus the sandy special bill.
>> i would just like to say briefly as wise as members of the appropriations committee are, especially our schairm, we can't predict earthquakes, we can't predict fires, we can't predict flooding, we can't predict the suffering that results from these events that only nature, frankly, can predict. we can't. so it is a fundamental obligation, in my judgment, in government to work together in partnership with the private sector and the salvation army, i think, and all the other groups, the red cross and just local groups that organize to help people so they can help themselves. but government does have that fundamental obligation, and we can't always predict what the next catastrophe will be. >> very true. mr. chairman, i yield back.
>> mr. webster? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have any questions, i would like to at least say this. what i see here in the supplement tal is a process by which we cannot perfect from are a substantiative stand point, we don't allow rightfully, don't allow amendments that are substantiative in nature to be attached to an appropriations act. i think that's a god thing. however, most of the problems here are substantiative in nature not necessarily appropriation. you put the dollar amount after you figure out what the problem is. all i would like to say is this is a picture what we really need. we need a national c.a.t fund. if we were to do that, not the only it would give some rules and regulations regarding what is and is not covered by our appropriation, but it also would greatly enhance the state's ability to understand what the
ceiling is. so that and insurance companies too, so that those in florida, especially we have a state-run company that insures wind storm damage called statistic. and however if there were a national c.a.t fund it would be a top to that cap. we could set forward all of the constraints necessary that are being proposed by all of these members, which are most of which cannot be made in order because of cost too. and yet it would be there and a matter of this body determining how much money we would put in to that c.a.t fund. so that's my -- it's not a question. it's jouling -- just a statement. >> thank you very much. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure and honor to serve on the committee. i echo the sentiment of my
former florida state legislator, league dan webster about the need for national catastrophic fund. i hope we can work toward that. meanwhile, i look forward toward helping my brothers and sisters in the northeast as they point the out. florida is no stranger to hurricanes and catastrophe, and i know the need is great and look forward to helping out. >> thank you very much. earlier as we've had our meeting where we've organized the committee, we talked about what the delight it is to have you on the committee, to bring not only your expertise from foreign affairs but also really your genuine service to the people of florida and south florida and we're delighted that you're here. >> i'm looking forward to not getting another call from rodney and mike. length of time. >> he called a bunch, and you
understood why he was calling. you understood that. i thank the gentleman. dr. burgess? >> thank you. we have some familiarity with tropical storms as they impact our state in texas as well. i would say to the gentleman from florida, i spent some time myself up in new york visiting four hospitals early in december. i didn't know i would be on the rules committee at that point. it's a very valuable information that i gathered over those days. the amendments i'll stop there and look forward to the rest of testimony. >> i thank the gentleman. i wanted to thank both of you for appearing before the committee today. i recognize that you have received input from a lot of members you have been diligent with faithfully doing the things which you believe in in working together on behalf of the rules committee. i want to thank both of you for extending your time and your
effort on both sides have done a lot of work. ilgd like to extend. if you could please -- [inaudible] could not have done this job without working effectively with you and so kudos to my rule's question staff on both sides of the aisle. >> thank you. >> i appreciate your -- they workday and night. weekends and sometimes without sleep for a couple of dais as they have on this bill. i appreciate you mentioning that we need to thank the staff both of this committee and the appropriation committee and the other members that are here. i appreciate that very much. in closing let me say this, from kentucky and all the other senates that all of us represent, we feel for the people of these states in the northeast that are in severe distress. we all have experienced in our
own states similar types of -- disaster not on this scale. our hearts are with the people of the northeast, and we appreciate time they have allowed us to perfect this legislation. >> in fact, it does matter. there was at least -- we did speak about it and i know mrs. slaughter did also. the governors and mayor reached out to the members there the representative members of congress, governor kristy spoke to me and governor cuomo and mayor bloomberg. mayor bloomberg has an awesome responsibility in his leadership ability too. notwithstanding some constraint rates that have not happened as effectively as we wanted. i hope your testimony here to
the committee we are trying to deal fairly and effectively with this issue to get it on the floor for you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you are both dismissed. i would next like to call up the gentleman from new jersey,. and without objection, gentleman, i have a prepared remarks that we will increw to the record. without objection. i want to thank the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> he's spent a great deal of time not only the preparation of this, but really, i think the tip of the sword, so to speak on the behalf of the delegation. and i must confess for a member to leave me the home number a number of times to get back to you you were dealing with this day and night. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on behalf of those who represent the northeast, new york, new
jersey, and connecticut. we want to thank you for your patience and fore berns here. i have during the course of the questions and testimony tried to revise my remarks. i assure you have i. there are a few things i would like to say. i i would like to -- acknowledge i know you share the same sentiment as the ranking and chairman, automatic of you do, we have felt your heart felt feelings from around the country, and you realize the predicament that we are in. the disaster we faced. let me proceed that the newspapers, local and national radio, internet bloggers, after the period of exceptional focus on the exceptional storm and the exceptional destruction have moved on to other stories. for those who represent these three states, 30 million people, let me assure you the suffering and damage is real and the needs
are great. just to give you a few statistics and these are human statistics 346,000 household units were damaged in new jersey alone. i'm sure the representatives in new york will probably give equal figures. i don't immediate to get in a comparison figure compared to 15,000 units in louisiana from hurricanes katrina and rita. 40,000 families in new jersey remain out of their homes today. i'm sure there's a similar figure for new york, in terms of the apartments and condominium. 2.4 million utility customers? new jersey lost power compared to 800,000 in katrina and rita. many for other two weeks. i can tell you i want to make sure my house is one of the last to be restored so there wasn't any criticism. there was pure misery for a lot
of people and most especially for those that lost everything. roughly 190,000 businesses were effected compared to 18,700 in louisiana in rita and katrina. many businesses shut down for weeks and many small business never reopened. the cost to the businesses large an small to hospitals and nursing home many were run on jeb -- generators to mass transit to individual families go far beyond this. according to many estimates, new jersey, new york, connecticut and the rest of the east coast sustained well over $100 billion worth of damage. governors kristy and cuomo requested oid $80 billion. we know it's controversial. we recognize that.
the administration has said they scrubbed proposal from the governor and tried to narrow it down to the most essential and immediate needs. and that regard, governors christie and cuomo and our new jersey and new york delegations many of whom are represented in the room this evening. democrats and republicans believe that $60 billion is a responsible request for the states. as we in the northeast have met the emergency disaster needs of other regions, and states without hesitation and historically have done that, mr. chairman, we're counting on you to help us. the veterans of hurricanes katrina and other cat fee elected officials, businessmen and women alike have warned a long-term stable recovery requires an injection of resources at the earliest possible date to ensure the ability to rebuild and strengthen our states rebuilding
homes, and businesses. it can't wait. a few words about my amendment. i'm asking do you make an order. it completes the sandy package by adding $33 billion bringing the total of the national flood insurance and the rogers' amendment and the amendment to $60 billion. to every extent possible the appropriations committee and i have scrubbed the president's request and senate bill to limit funding to address sandy-related disaster sandy-related disaster needs. the majority of the funding is designated emergency, because of budget control act exemption applies to needs are, and i quote, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. end of quotes. i want to emphasize these two last points. my amendment contains no earmarks unlike the senate
bill. my amendment strips down authorization language inserted in the senate. mr. chairman, i request you make this an order. and i look forward to answering any questions your members may vf me. >> thank you very much. i want to, once again, public address my thanks to you for not only making yourself available to me to have these discussions that were necessary, but actually for your leadership at the time when it was very critical. when perhaps things needed a push. perhaps some things needed to be done well. i think you're mature, thoughtful approach to this helping us to work through a difficult circumstance is one that needs to be publicly acknowledged. so you have a . >> i'd like to thank many of those until the room here that represent the new york, new jersey, and connecticut for their support. republican, democrats bipartisan
support as well as the work of governor christie, governor cuomo as well. >> exemptional. and i would consider that to be a model of how do things also. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we don't have any questions, but i want to assure you that we do feel great sympathy for what has happened in -- as a result of hurricane sandy, and the numbers that you have given out show that the tremendous challenges there. i don't think anybody doubts that whatsoever and i want to appreciate your leadership too on the issue. thank you. >> thank thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you. i want to thank my colleagues on the committee of the expressions of concern for us. and they're willingness to help us. we're really up against a wall. we need let our people go. we need to have some certainty
here. one of the amendments that concerns me considerably have to do with cutting the money for amtrak, and i want to -- [inaudible] about this why it's important. what happened to amtrak in the northeast. it was flooding of 402--year-old amtrak tunnel. a tunnel that runs from the hudson and east rivers were flooded with more than 10 million gallons that shut down the service for several days to nearly two weeks. the damage to the electrical and signal system, those are the systems that allows trains to operate sufficiently and safely were damaged by the winds and water infiltration which caused electricity -- shorts and other problems. flooding the electrical power station in new jersey. providing the electricity power that new york bound amtrak runs on. it was totally flooded from
seven-foot storm surge -- [inaudible] for amtrak in a new jersey transit system for nearly three weeks. what difference does that make? it makes a tremendous difference. the entire northeast and economy of america. 9,000 people travel on the amtrak infrastructure between new jersey and new york a day. and this is devastation of not being able to have those trains run is certainly, as you pointed out, restaurants close and made small business close and won't come back. i really hope that when the amendments come up on amtrak, we will consider the damages done, the damages done to the economy and the u.s. economy. i also -- i spoke to you before the meeting started about the fema changes senator landrieu called me on -- [inaudible conversations] >> yeah. and the changes have been made
and as i understand, we will be voting on them. >> i think there was something on the floor this evening. >> which includes bipartisan reforms to fema. >> good. >> i think it would be -- we try the appropriations on the -- i know people don't believe this to do as little authorization as possible respectfully of the authorization committee. i think it's on suspension tonight. >> i hope so. because that -- i think it's a very important part. not to watch what we see in katrina. i thank you for that. no further questions. >> thank you very much. mr. bishop? >> i don't know to whom to actually ask this question. maybe either of you or to the any of the fore floridians who happen or it here. represent hastings said there would be many for florida beaches in here. i know, there's a $4 billion
category of energy and water that would be for beach restoration. as i understand the writing from you, it simply the beach restoration that deal specifically with hurricane sandy. so is there money in here for restoration of florida beaches? >> there's none that i'm aware of, no. it's directly -- [inaudible] >> could i simply ask -- ask i misunderstand you in what you said? if i'm correct, i'll correct the record. and -- we're we'll aware that beaches are important to florida as they are to many states, but -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> i'll give mr. hastings a
chance. >> we'll check it out. >> mr. mcgovernor, thank you. thank you for your amendment. i look forward to supporting it. and i think the people of the effected areas obviously appreciate our sympathy. we appreciate the vote and the money to be able to rebuild and the do the reconstruction that is necessary. and again, i appreciate everybody's concern with, you know, wanting to have an open process here. you could have a situation with the amendments where there were poison pills that mess thicks up. and, you know, if last congress is any judge, this is a committee that had 77 restrictive roles and 75 enclosed roles. i don't think anybody have any problem limitings the amendment here. i would also say those talking about oversight, oversight, oversight. we have borrowed like $1.5 trillion for wars in iraq and afghanistan. and i will argue have not been given an oversight.
time and time and time again we try to have amendments calling for had oversight. we don't get them allowed. i would say these are anemia our country who are hurting, and they need the money now, and i think you have done a very good of job describing what the requests are to make sure it's needed. there will be future oversight as the funds being given out. i would say this, it's hard to do the kind much recovery and piece mail fashion. people need to know the money is going to be there and plan accordingly, and so we need to step up and do this. we should have done it before we the last congress adjourned. we the opportunity now. we look forward to voting for your amendment. thank you. >> thank thank you very much. >> thank you mr. , mr. chairman. i want to thank my friend for the amendment as well and the hard work on this. i know, how much time you have put in on this, not only helping put together the package but
reaching out to members and answering the questions and explaining the needs firsthand. it's very helpful. two specific things i would like you to address. you gave some really, terrifically revealing set of statistics how serious this is, the scope of it. i don't think is for whatever reason gotten quite the visual play that katrina got. it's harder, sometimes to understand. and the a lot of damage is less viz able. it's underground. a saw an photograph today from the representative of new york taling me the stop of the subway station that went eight stories down flooded. it's staggering when you think about that and the amount of electrical cable and the things there. but i think there is a misunderstanding of how much money in addition to what you're asking the state of new york and new jersey not of making
investment themselves you never get a disasterrer that the federal government comes close to paying 100 percent of. if you have any information on that, it would be helpful. >> new jersey and new york is not waiting. they obviously, may may be limited in the budgetary resources, there are immediate things they are addressing. but the substantially expensive ones that which you refer to, the depth of some of these tunnels and electrical systems that support, you know, a city of new york city's size as well as those who come across the hudson each and every day, too expensive for any municipal or city budget. >> the second question i ask is remitted. it's well and good to talk about. we do. we try to be prudently appropriate to the need as is needed, on projects this size being able to make long-term decisions and commitments are pretty important.
and postponing funding sometimes mean it's simply not going to be there. you can't build half a bridge or restore half a tunnel once you begin the process you have to know you have to goat end of. it can you give us some example or some insight in to how difficult it will be to plan going forward if we're at 17 as a boseed to -- a opposed to 50. >> i think you made my case of -- for me. one thing we put in to mr. rogers underlying bill and my amendment is to for federal agencies to report too the appropriations process as to the progress they have made, and they have to plan the use of the money is not just going to be dolled out without any restraints. so i think built in to my amendment i think are a lot of milestones that have to be met by the department of
transportation. department of housing and urban development as well as our, you know, our rail networking amtrak along the northeast corridor. we're not handing out money to amtrak that is unrelated to repairing things that occur as a result -- it was talk of that. we're not doing that. >> one last question. again, drawing on the katrina experience, you know, there when we found we overshot the mark, we were able to duoback and reclaim some of that money. i don't expect that necessarily in this particularly instance. but you never know. so i ask you anything in your amendment that would prevent us in a later time, if we saw, look, overappropriated people trying to estimate . >> there would be nothing to prevent us from going back in and taking money out that had not been spent had been after a certain period of time a year or
two unobligated i would suspect much would be obligated. in case it's not obligated we have an obligation to take it back per the use for the taxpayers' use or the expression goes, to reduce the federal deficit. >> thank you, gentleman. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. hastings. >> i don't have any questions. >> thank you very much. without a doubt of funds, which i'm working on, -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask that the gentleman, i know he's speaking on behalf of the constituents when we bring the amendment to the bill, the size of the package with the addition of your amendment, becomes larger than many entire appropriations bills. $60 billion. that's larger than homeland security appropriations bill. mr. king, that's larger than the
financial services appropriation bill. that's larger than the state department foreign operations appropriations bill. these are bills from which this congress deliberates for months. hearing the chairman say before you came up to testify that he was committed to making sure that your folks get those things that they need. hearing the priorities that everyone has laid out, knowing these are not optional things that are needed, these are mandatory things that are needed. these are items that new jersey and new york will absolutely bring to few i guess these tunnels are not going to be closed. they are going to be prepared. amtrak is not going to be closed, it's going to be prepared. relodging that sew many members having concerns making sure they get every community every dollar they need but do it in a way that is the most responsible
they can be to the own taxpayers back home. does the chairman's commitment to deal with these issues as soon as the certifications come to you from your community back home not satisfy . >> well, the depth of the destruction is such that if we don't move ahead with some -- to rebuild the infrastructure. the manhattan -- [inaudible] are probably even more densely populated. so you a critical mass of people there who have lives in many cases have been altered forever. businesses collapses and housing has been destroyed. we need to start the process and in order to obligated for rebuilding and allow the
infrastructure, we need to start the process now and need to put enough money on the table to do it. >> knowing how well the appropriations committee works together, i'm not trying to pitch against your this. i thought whey heard the chairman say is the committee in the mark had provided dollars to all of the requests that had been certified, i see mr. king shake his head. did i misunderstand the characterization? >> he had the national -- i can tell you that the appropriation's staff went through my -- as a matter of fact his appropriations staff drafted my amendment to ensure the transparency of what we were doing everything -- every expenditure will be listed in transparent. they scrub the bill to make sure that's it was relevant to sandy. what concerns us is that a lot of money has gone out the door
for other disaster how e -- somehow we are held to a higher standard. i think we ought to have the highest standards. our bill reflects the highest standards. it's fully transparent, and quite honestly i think it's entirely defensible. with the gentleman? >> gentleman has not been recognized. gentleman has not been recognized. >> i apologize. >> and will hold the comments. >> i just say to the gentleman, his words about being held to a different standard or absolutely compelling. i say the same thing to my friend from mt. . as we hold or water effort to a different stand than the domestic funding. i think it can be the most frustrating above all. i want you to know from the deep south we are not beneficiary from the -- we hold your need to the highest. >> yeah. i can say and i'm sure --
governor christie has made a commitment. he's not going to -- for this money he's going make sure the money is well spent. not a bit is wavered and much of the community money will be going through the economic development authority. i think it will be vetted very carefully. >> i yield back. >> thank you. >> i have a eye tempt to -- item to submit to the report. december 7, 2012 letter from -- [inaudible] o'and this is in reference to nonh not the current person testifying but mr. roger's testimony they said the mrs. -- why didn't the administration request water shed protection money. they did. that was interpreted by the senate and included with the senate bill specifically $150 million too mitigate future. the amendment is $152 million. slightly under that request,
which again, is should meet the needs and specific request on page three regarding -- [inaudible] i would like to submit those to the record. and clarify in fact that it's fairly clear that it's something the administration supports and manifested in the senate bill. >> without objection. gentleman? -- [inaudible] you yield back your time. mr. nugent? >> mr. webster. pass the national c.a.t fund. i'm sorry i did not hear you. >> pass the national c.a.t fund. any further questions for him. we want to thank you. >> thank you. >> on behalf of the committee, let me tell you that it is the committee's speftd that we will have an fair and open process
without poison pills and with the attribute of fairnd that has been example fied by this committee. we also want to extend to you as we did knowing -- we thank you for your representation the way you have dealt with the committee. i want to thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> gentleman is now excused. we'll call in the next panel. please be advised we're now on votes. it's my understanding we have one suspension vote taking place. this committee -- i'm sorry? i'm sorry we're going three votes. okay so hearing that what i'd like to do is call up the next panel, if i can. we're going continue working we have some 92 amendments to deal with as members choose to go and vote. we will let them do that. meaning that the committee may go and vote and come back and forth. we're going keep flowing in on
through this process. i'd like to call up now the gentleman mr. smith. chris smith, bill pass pascrell, mr. -- and mr. king. mr. king, you still here. rest of you may have left to go vote, so jim,let get you up here . and mr. mcclinton, you're in this. we can have you join in there also. and bill, now begin with the gentleman mr. smith. mr. smith, you're recognize 8. >> thank you mr. chairman and member of the committee. i want to associate myself from the remarking about -- [inaudible] our delegation is very strongly bipartisan in a bipartisan fashion is supported the amendment.
he talked about 346,000 homes have been destroyed. 11,000 uninhasn'tble. unbelievable. my district has been effected like so many others. i again would ask that the committee make that amendment in order when it votes. i do want to thank you you again for the opportunity to speak about amendment number 85, which would address a critical gap in overall assistance to energy of the vitally important legislation. the substantial portion of the assistance provided during the time of the emergency and this continues has been by faith-based community. in time of the disaster, many americans give donation to the local churches and synagogues because they trust the money will be quickly and very 66 indicationly used to those in need. in turn the victims often turn first to the local synagogue and churches for help. even though houses and worship
houses were severely -- i believe it's wrong. it's a very serious oversight and in support of the amendment i will be brief. i know, we have votes. the union of or docks jewish congregations of american have supported the amendment. they point out that it's entirely appropriate for fema the need program to provide private non-profit to assist houses of worship with the rebuilding need. they have endorsed the amendment. and made [inaudible] bishop laurie. it should be noted in the aftermath of the -- they may an irreplaceable role. they -- [inaudible]
than devastated some 165 churches have been damaged to over $19 million. it's a simple fix, i think it's -- i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. mr. pascrell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good luck. >> thank you. i'm going need it. >> on the baseball field too. >> that's different story there. [laughter] i'm pleased we're finally going to bring this bill to the floor as to the speaker of the committee. the northeast communities have already waited far too long for this to be approved almost eighty days and counted. i flew to texas when they had that horrific storm many years
ago, and as we flew in, we saw the damage from above. the coverings from the homes that have been destroyed, half second and third floors gone. we talked to people in texas and it's good we talk to people in the region that help with us catastrophe and a lot of other things. the northeast communities are waiting. my amendment is simple, mr. chairman. it's an amendment most importantly it costs no additional money for the treasury. it provides governors with the flexibility to provide additional grants should they determine that it is in the interest of their states recovery. the amendment we moves the 30% cap in this bill on the state's ability to provide grants or principle forgiveness to community receiving a loan from the state reinvolving fund. this will give states as much
discretion and flexibility as possible to help struggling communities afford installing prevent i have measures at water and waste water treatment plants. it's a serious problem in new jersey. which i'll get to in a second. they are necessary to guard against future disasters as well. even before this super storm sandy struck. many communities like -- were struggling economically. the great recession put them furthered behind. now that the communities have gone through hurricane sandy, the challenges they face are doubled. let me give an example. my district, the valley sewage commission plant serves 3 million new jersey begans. that's one quarter of the entire population of the state of new jersey. it's been severely damaged. it is not producing what it usually produces.
raw sewage is moving in to the water ways of new mexico as we speak. flooding occurred in the treatment plants and tunnel and galleries and administrative security buildings included onsite lavatory. throughout the entire plant power -- the estimated cost is to be restore the facility through prestorm status between 250 and $300 million. mr. chairman, this is just several in new jersey of those regional authorities that have been damaged. the estimates of each of the cost of how much it cost to repair each of those facilities is quite high. and i submit it in the record. i'm thankful that my friend has maintain the important need. as i said to you mr. chairman, there's no additional money to
the treasury. it gives latitude and longitude, as we say in new jersey, to the governors of each of the states that are affected. i ask that the amendment be accepted as part of his. thank you. >> thank you mrs. pascrell. thank you, ma'am chair. ranking member, members of the committee, i want to thank you for inviting me to testify today. i would like to recognize my cosponsor of the amendment i'm going to speak about. the amendment that we offer is very simple. it strikes the language in the amendment that makes only epa region two. in other words new york, new jersey eligible for the bans and replacing bipartisan pass language ensuring all states that received a major disaster due to hurricane sandy receive the grants. the amendment also waives the cost for the such grant.
since the hurricane sandy hit our state in late october, member from across the east coast have come together to commanded -- demand to the same those we award to the gulf. and those in the west valley devastating wild fire. and to so many others, when disaster struck their communities. all we ask is timely appropriation of disasters tax so our states can begin the recovery process. time and again this congress has affirmed that when a disaster hits we're in this together. and this time it should be no different. unfortunately the language contained makes new york and new jersey eligible to receive the epa funds and fails to meet the standards. it precludes my home state of rhode island, delaware, maryland and over other state that received a presidential
decoration -- to help the community recovery and protect our nation's water resources. i request you make it in order to all states effected bring hurricane sandy may receive the critical funding. thank you i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. mcclintock. >> thank you million chairperson. we agree with the chairman of the appropriations words for aid that is in his words urgently needed to fill, quote, immediate need for emergency recovery. there's no question about that. but in this time of trillion dollar budget deficits bailouts and -- i think we have lost track of how much money it is. it comes to about $450 out of the budget of household in the country. that's tab for every household in america. $50. i don't think they begrudge a
penny provided they were assured it was going for immediate emergency relief, and recovery. but looking at the package, $50 billion. $16 billion is to begin triple the amount being spent for community development block grant. we know what the program is. it's funded questionable projects as doggy daycare center in ohio, and a day at the circus in new york. the omb has repeatedly warned us that the program is in their words, ineffective. that is the bureaucracy's polite term for programs where they cannot trace the funding and cannot show any kind of effectivenesses. the legal authorization for this program expired in 1994, by this measure. as i said country triples. $2 billion is for road repair.
including as he pointed out up to $20 million in guam the islands, and american samoa that aren't in the same ocean as hurricane sandy. 111 million is for weather satellites. explain to me how a weather satellite can be damaged by a hurricane? we may need more or better weather satellite or better management of the data. that's a legitimate debate to have not in an emergency relief measure. that demands the scrutiny of the normal appropriations process. i can go on. you get the point. the amendments that i am offering to the amendments as well as the other amendments strip out the cdbg funding. limit the expendture to fiscal year 2013. in other words all of the emergency relief measures that are necessary to get through the
current fiscal year are left in the bill. everything else is put to the normal appropriations process so they can be given appropriate scrutiny in troalings all other competing demands on the nation's resources. so i would ask those be put in to the -- other thing i might add strips $2 billion of highway repairs out of the bill. >> thank you, mr. mcclintock. would you like to come and join dr. flemming and we will see if we can get through the testimony and before everybody needs to run down and vote and -- . >> if i can interpret. i thought from pascrell had an
excellent legislation. i had a question how the states being limited and why we have to deal with that. one of the sad part we've had the testimony of the panel and the panel of the last -- questions can never be answered again. we it's a reason we have panels today and all the testimony is given and questions answered even about funding for floridian beaches it's -- we have unique situations that are happening right now. but this is not our committee's . >> i'm not sure if we can -- i think there's going to be another vote. my guess was that those members left to go vote, and what i can do is ask that those members be brought back up. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] gentleman, what we're going to do to avoid our having a problem with this in the future, we're
going take a recess. allow everybody to go vote on the subsequent two votes, and then we'll bring people back. there's mr. pascrell. i'm glad you came back. i would like to have you available for questions, if we could. we're going go ahead. there's a -- today is a very unusual tsh this is very unusual. if you don't mind, if you would come back at the beginning of the third vote we'll ask all the members to come straight back up here and be available then. thank you. this committee is in recess until the beginning of the third vote this evening. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] we see the florida representative, he and the rest of the committee taking a break so they can go to the house floor for votes this evening. it's about half over. we are expecting them back. we'll have more live coverage here on c-span2. yesterday new york city's administration commissioner spoke about the effort to improve the city welfare programming. he was speaking at the event
honoring him. we'll watch that manhattan institute forum until the live coverage of the rules committee. [applause] thiewng, peter. i want to specially thank you for your joke because you provided the humor for our speech today. i especially especially like your reference to my position as relatively on secure public official [laughter] you're correct about that. [laughter] and thank you also to the manhattan institute. not only for the honor but all that you have done our city. the list of important thinkers and writers of the institute who have positively influenced public policy in new york is long. so long that i hesitate to mention any. except perhaps heather north carolina donald, kay, and howard and ej and nicole.
i know, have the manhattan institute and city journal for a long time and benefited from your insight and contribute biewtion. i want to say how grateful i am to mayor bloomberg. at no time i have ever doubted he supported work-based welfare policy and he wanted me to stand strong and defense policy that reduced the welfare case load by more than 700,000 rep sip yent. increase work rates for single mother and reduce poverty. i want to credit and thank deputy mayor linda gibbs for the steadfast support for my work in maintaining the accomplishment while at the same time pushing me and everyone in the city government to do still more to raise the economic perspective of low-income new yorkers. finally, i need to let you know that i represent a large, 14,000-person city agency. in one of the remarkable and
unappreciated aspected is the extent to which our employees have accepted and endorsed and acted on the perm responsibility emphasis and work focus of welfare reform. it is a little known fact that the best place and the quickest way to find an ardent welfare reformer is on the frontlines of our city's welfare agency. we could not have accomplished all we have without our work force accepting and acting on the challenge. i hope you don't mind if i begin with a little bit how i got in to the welfare reform business in the first place. i was very lucky to be asked to join the administration in the fall of 1995. i had previously worked on congressional campaign for the washington monthly, and even ran for state assembly myself. at every stop id a vote candidated forpolicy that reform welfare and asked for personal responsibility for recipient and emphasize work and family as the path out of poverty.
not government assistance, not welfare rights, or entitlements. my first exposure to being able to do anything about the concerns came when governor asked me to be the director of the state child support enforcement program. to tell the truth when i was asked how i got the job i used to reply, well, it tushes out that when republicans in charge, the line for jobs in social services is very short. [laughter] created bay federal statute during the board administration, the nation's child support enforcement program was supposed to do something about absent fathers. it was supposed to make deadbeat days bay for the care of the children the care that they were providing in the old welfare program. a large goal. but at least in new york, child support enforcement was a wack water, the bastard child of social services they told me. the goal of enforcing parnl's
personal responsibility to provide financial support for the children had been out of step with the prevailing theme. the method of using law enforcement technique of tracking down fathers. the state only in the business at all because of it a federal requirement that came at the generous federal funding. needless to say, in the first year of the administration, it was great place to work. there is nothing like being given a job where the only path is up. so i was lucky and i was also fortunate to have the total support of governor. as i said it was a great personal responsibility issue which the governor cared about a lot. even better perhaps also a great women's issue. the custodial parent is almost always the mother and the political push for the greater child support collection rarely game from the traditional poverty fighting groups they were happy with the government
taking over the care of children. there was a real grassroots lower middle class group of women who were not receiving welfare but it would have been frustrated and abused by the traditional court processes for divorce and support. these women were commanding -- demanding we do a better job for them as well as the women open welfare. my purpose today is not to talk about that. i promise i'm going get to welfare reform in a minute. all i will say sphurt we shamelessly stole from other states. we promoted a personal responsibility message of the program and collections rose dramatically to more than $1.a billion. i was again lucky to be working in social services when even before the passage of the federal refair form act the my your began to bring work -- and personal requirement and expectations to welfare policy here in new york city.
the governor and mayor may have had their disagreement. as the person responsibility for communicating the state's positions to city officials i never saw it. n fact to us the message from the governor's office was always clear. make sure you help the mayor with welfare. there are five key elements to welfare reform in new york city. they were essential in the early years and remained essential during the bloomberg administration. let's take them one at the time. work first over education and training. offering adult welfare recipients education and training may sound nice. but study after study has shown it doesn't work. the key has been to require 100% ingaugement in work or work-like activity. enforced consequences failing to comply. in order to receive the cash fans from the government. the welfare applicants or recipient have got show up and
show us they are actively engaged in work or getting to work. we will monitor that they are doing this. strong antifraud measures. welfare programs cannot be naive about the capacity of citizens to dissee or try to get over on the system. we are not afraid to check asset and income, residency, and identity to be sure taxpayer funded benefits are going to those who legitimately qualify. and performance-based contract. we pay the not for profit for accomplishments not just forest fire seeing a client. it was one of the first social service agency to use 100% based-performance contract. we don't -- don't so today. there's another element of the success that i want to give additional attention to this afternoon. we strongly endorsed work support to shore up wages for low-income families. let me repeat. a key to the success of welfare
reform in new york city were the significant investment in north carolina or work support for working families. these are the aspect of health that nyu professor larry mead is talking about when he refers to welfare reform as bag combination of hassle and help. what are the supports for working families? one is child support enforcement. in ?ifn that program collected $300 million in new york city for the families. many of whom formally on welfare. in 2012 we collected -- another is public health insurance. medicaid. now i have great concerns about the way the state manages the medicaid program. how health care providers are monitored cost controlled. the governor and mayor giuliani and bloomberg have been clear that the problem of medicate is not we enroll too many people. the governor expanded health insurance public health
and ambivalent. what are the differences but in the blue ribbon administration and the predecessor is that so long as we can expect that recipients work and there are adequate fraud prevention is believes the benefits are another important component of our efforts to increase the economic strength of low-income working families. pushed by federal and state policies which we are required to implement and by our own decider to make the application process simpler to recipients and their workers the program as dramatic from 789,000 of soybeans in 2002 to more than 1.8 million new yorkers on food stamps and 2012. so what we have now is not an entitlement base system but a work based welfare system. if you are able-bodied and you can work you must of the condition of receiving assistance and if you do, we will make your earnings for work to go further. if there is an aspect of the
work support system that makes me uncomfortable it is the diminished goal of self-sufficiency messages were important. we emphasize personal responsibility, self sufficiently in the time limited assistance. we spoke against the government to beautiful qassam the effort of the individual, not to the government, but in our drive to promote work support i'm worried that we lost that message and we need it back. messaging matters and we need clear messages for all of our leaders while the government she and can and should provide support the responsibility for one's economic support lies at the individual and the family. obama's second inaugural address coming up soon would be a good time for him to rely on the country that the government is dependent on the people, not the other way around. we also need more clarity and discussion from all of the leaders about the importance of
family despite the widespread acceptance that children do better with two-parent married households despite what we know about the instability in financial hardships caused by single parents trying to raise children on their own and despite statistics about the worst educational attainment, greater criminal justice and a great welfare usage among the single parent families, despite all of that our leaders, our universities, our media and religious institutions and the leaders of the groups where the problem of single parenthood is the most severe both of the african-american and hispanic community refused to take this issue on the aggressively or deal with in any meaningful way. this problem is particularly glaring in the reporting of most of our media, which to it sometimes credit devotes great effort in chronically and the remarkable detail, the difficulties of the poor but can't seem to ask the subjects of the story of a simple question.
where is the father and then there is the president. there could be no better voice on the important issue of family and the role and the role fathers plan and the lives of children to give the president of the united states the first lady since the absolutely correct example and examples help but he says so little, and he almost never turns his hypercritical i on this important issue. he's good at describing america's shortcomings and hypocrisies and failures, but not this one. the most eloquent expression of the role of a married father during the most recent presidential campaign came from the first lady during her democratic national convention speech. michelle obama described her disabled father rising every morning to head off to work. she recounted how she and her brother fulfilled their father's dreams by going to college for which her father probably helped pay. you see, said the first lady,
for my dad that's what it meant to be a man. it won't happen. it surely won't happen but it will be nice if president obama uses the second inaugural address to refrain from a call to ask not what your country can do for you not to herald the new age of public service but to remind americans that strong individuals and families are still the essential prerequisite to successful americans. i think fame for helping change welfare as we meet. before i end, i need to say the biggest key to success of all was the recipients themselves. we've been in the government and press releases and promotional material like to say that we place people in jobs or got jobs for this number of people but anyone who actually does that work knows the person who gets the job is the person who gets the job, and that act thousands
of thousands of times every year by former or prospective or current welfare recipients of getting a job and earning a wage is what made welfare reform a success and proved poor new yorkers even poor single mothers could and would choose responsibility and greater independence if only they were asked. thank you very much. [applause] thank you so much, commissioner. if i might start the questions, i am struck by your comments about the decline in emphasis on self sufficiency and how complicated that this because you want to support work, but at the same time there is a
potential downside. i was wondering if you feel and that implies the likelihood of an increased kind of paternalism that is going to emerge. what is the most interesting thing that you tried to do was to limit the use of food stamps for sugar drinks. they said no. >> i know that mayor bloomberg definitely wants you to. but i want to ask you, do you think that is the future? that is if we are going to be supporting people through the earned income tax credit and all of the other work support that you mentioned, is it inevitable that we are also going to be seeking to influence their behavior, and is that a good thing? >> i think the analogy to the food stamp issue that we have pursued with the obama administration where we ask them to test the experimental project where we limited the use of the
food stamp benefits for the products that were clearly unhealthy and contributed to the obesity problem and higher health care costs was really more about health care and more about a health problem than a sort of concerted and meditated desire to influence people's behavior. the mayor is very devoted to and very committed to policies that improve the health outcomes of families for people in the city of new york. this is something he absolutely believe in and she fought hard for. fortunately the president and secretary of agriculture said no it isn't something they wanted to test or experiment with and see how it would work. but i don't know that at least from the bloomberg administration that that carries forward to the many, many other places or ways. we definitely want to encourage work. we think work is a key part of our individual lives and livelihood in the city and it ought to be a prerequisite to receiving public assistance coming and we wanted to take a
program, you know, the food stamp program is now called the supplemental food stamp and nutrition program. supplemental nutrition assistance and the need to purchase products that are clearly on healthy seem to us like why don't we try, adding that and sending a message to the recipients so that they should buy products that are more appropriate for their health. so i don't know that that carries forward. i do think it is a lot about messaging and the sands with regard to the messages about self-sufficiency and dependency it's a different political world we are in. we have a democratic governor and democratic president and they are more interested in the government sponsored solution and less interested in talking about independence and self-sufficiency. so there's my answer on that. >> let me open to questions from
the floor. larry has been referenced positively a couple times a day. >> tell us who you are. >> robert, i want to pick up on your comment about the marriage problem, the family problem. i think since we've made some progress in raising work levels among people in welfare, in that sense it shifts a priority to were addressing the problem of the family breakdown and non-marriage and so on, and i agree with you that this is a jury sensitive issue that people have a hard time addressing and from your comments, i had a sense that maybe you think that the best way we can promote marriages to stop accepting non-marriage that we have to say it's improper to have children outside of marriage. this isn't a good idea. and we have to go back to the policy where we disapproved,
that we know from the various opinion surveys the public is uneasy about that. they don't want to stigmatize single mothers and the same time they don't want to see the decline in the families. so what is the answer? is it rhetoric, is a public campaign? i kind of lean that way myself. or is there some practical thing that we can do at the policy level but will promote the family? >> someone in the practical world of policy and public agency work i've struggled with this immensely because it is very hard to pull a string or policy objective to promote marriage greater than single parenthood which is really what we need. so what we all sort of the fault honestly is public relations campaign and promotions and sending messages. that's all we have left. but i was trying to say today is we are not even trying to talk about that enough, and there is just this great discomfort to
think it's pretty clear that is the only answer i have on that issue to be we know lots of single parents do very well and are able to raise children and we certainly don't want to -- i think it would be going too far to deny assistance or turn our backs on them. but clearly it is a part of a significant part of the problem. >> yes. >> they are all coming from the head table. [laughter] >> as somebody who had myers your work, robert, knowing how challenging it is, having had that job before, here's my question. i think you are the first commissioner that served three consecutive terms. it's very difficult to serve one term without getting fired. >> i haven't worked for mayor bloomberg free 11 years and i
want to make it clear about that. >> for which you served in the majority what is your key to success? >> i used to say i worked for the governor right until the last day 2006 and i remember when he left the office i had my 9-year-old or 8-year-old son, and he insisted on leaving these notes on the chair to the next occupant and i picked them up and the first one said "boo eliot spitzer." [laughter] i said i don't know if that is the right message. [laughter] and i'm sorry, governor spitzer. succumb on a -- than what happened is he tried to pick me up on waivers and the commissioner was going to leave and he saw he worked with a city
so aggressively and i had been supportive he offered me the job the key to staying successful or appearing successful in the city government is to first of all focus on your employees', focus on the people that are in your team. be a good internal leader first -- >> you can see all of this manhattan institute for matt c-span.org. going back live now to the house rules committee. the chairman of the committee pete sessions is speaking [inaudible] scheduled to come up before the house tomorrow. >> thank you mr. chairman. if foot fault. we had the chance talking of the floor in the appreciate you giving me the answer.
maybe you can simply for the committee say to the question i had is why was there federal limitation on the state the governor is the annual change the state revolving fund? >> it is abused over and over again that is why there is no more federal money by asking for so this is a fund that is very necessary with a 30% cap on what the states can send. there is a cap simply because there is federal money involved. >> that is correct. >> is this a temporary only for this particular situation? and it expires at the end of this? >> that is correct. that's the question i had. i appreciate it. >> thank you very much,
governor. >> no question, just a quick comment to my friend mr. smith, you were the first one to talk to me about issue constituents but they are glad to hear from all of you. appreciate it. i don't know if there's anything more than introducing ourselves -- are you from california? which part of california? >> the congressional district which is in the yosemite valley. >> they have counties -- >> i did for 22 years. islamic then you know how sausage is made to get the question, those that loved sausage or respect to law -- it
is going to be this way, it's been that way for 20 years and i agree with you that there should be changes. >> i every there is a misuse and if we can build around and find a different things about the programs and i can cite to you some examples of the use of the cdbg funds that wouldn't be attained in those funds utilized for that purpose for the edification that not everybody used. >> i'm sure that is the case but according to this congressional budget office there's a 98% in the underlying measure as well as the amount times are not even
able to be spent until next year. at the earliest that is not an emergency. i realize this is the way that we have some things before the calling of the annapolis graduation the oldest commissioned officer in the u.s. navy serving of her years in the u.s. navy she landed the greatest to human progress in the words that we've always done this way to the weekend afford to keep doing it this way not with a 50 billion-dollar measure that money is actually for the emergency, underline the word emergency. i've never seen any that didn't have anything other than the direct supplemental and i agree with you in that regard. i would like to see a stand alone and in the appropriate.
>> we knew you were coming back and we waited for you. does anyone have a question? to be here for this important hearing for the contribution in that hearing for representing the people that you do with the ideas that you do and of course we want to thank you for your reaching out to me on behalf of your state and your constituents , and i hope that this hearing produced a result that you feel like you are able to represent people and make a point and we appreciate each of you for taking time to be here today to visit you are now
excused. >> we will call up the next panel. >> if you would push those appear we will see if we can do that. >> we will get you up next. welcome. by the way, gentlemen come any prepared remarks that you have will be inserted in the record without objection. >> first one to say that on the subject of the hurricane being from louisiana, i will
understand and appreciate all of the human suffering that has occurred in the previous week's related to the storm and we want to give help to these victims as soon as possible and the focus of the amendment that we had with our national debt at 16.4 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see we must carefully scrutinize every experience for sharing the subcommittee on fisheries for the natural resources committee and we took a close look at the parts of the amendment and saw some opportunities to refocus our efforts and resources to washington for each dollar increase is what we are asking our children and grandchildren
to pay in the lessons we can have as an impact to the areas we need before. it would cut 9.8 million for the fish and wildlife service for rebuilding the sea walls and buildings on uninhabited islands in the stewart mckinney wildlife refuge in connecticut. we must distinguish between must haves and - to have in this bill in this case the building is in question primarily serve small groups of students from southern connecticut state university during the months for conservation class's. so that is $9.8 million being spent to rebuild see walls and buildings on the on inhabited island. for some type of school or training that they are there only during the day. no one spends the night. it cut 50.000000 in the fish and wildlife service installing the
new water control equipment on the two islands in north carolina not damaged by hurricane sandy. the islands were damaged during hurricane irene of 2011 to be there wasn't much of a priority after the hurricane but somehow it now is. it seems that not to make this part of their budget requests for fy 12th. this isn't for and related spending. amendment 51 kutz $3 million from the fish and wildlife service for locating the and damaged roads and the wildlife refuge and underscore and damaged roads it simply relocates them, something that is way out in the future in terms of need, even though there's $3 million allocated to that, it's a justification only for 650,000 to read it is unacceptable for them to say give us the money now we will tell you what it's going to be
for leader. the congress as a responsibility to hold the money until they can justify then finally amendment 91 kutz 1.5 million from the fish and wildlife service from the national conservation training center in west virginia. the center wasn't damaged why hurricanes and the but is seeking to upgrade its generators to provide full power to all buildings. this may be a good thing but i just don't think it belongs in this bill of emergency opinion. certainly we can go through regular order and provide that if it is necessary. the facility wasn't designed to shelter in place for that to the way of the bill. this recognizes the value of preventive medicines and i don't send my patient to the emergency room to receive that and that's exactly what we are doing on some of the measures in this amendment. >> thank you very much. mr. brooks? >> thank you mr. chairman.
amendment 78 offered in new jersey and brooks 79 which is an amendment. basically both of them are paid for and provide a source for funding for the money that would be spent for disaster relief caused by hurricane sandy. what it does is cut into foreign aid with the exception of israel, afghanistan or pakistan and shift those moneys being spent on foreign aid to instead be spent on american aid to the victims of hurricane sandy so it is paid for, it is a substantive pay for the amounts are unknown because it is the key to how much money is spent or has already been spent on foreign
aid, and that can fluctuate depending on when this legislation should pass. the reason i am submitting the pay for is because the precarious condition the united states government sees itself to the financially we're on a path to nowhere. financially, we are looking at instead of a fiscal clough, a fourth consecutive deficit we have $16 trillion in total debt to increase that beyond $16 trillion to put that into perspective the amount of damages done to the country on an annual basis now serving the data is excess of $20 billion to put it in perspective that $220 billion that we're spending for servicing the past is three times all of those sought by entertains and the victims. best case scenario give them everything they want of what sandy is seeking. four times what is being spent
annually by the federal government on certain transportation infrastructure needs. if you want to talk about programs that are no longer available because of that money being spent on servicing the debt think in terms of 12 or 13 messes that is the equivalent of how much money we are now spending servicing so the question becomes are we going to be financially responsible as we pay for the disaster as the ocher? i would submit to you this is one option, there were many options that may be available that may be on the table, but if we are going to be in a financially difficult time and we have to make hard decisions, i did submit the body the hard decisions have to be made. to me is an easy choice between helping americans who need aid and helping the foreigners to desire aid. these are american tax dollars being spent its best to spend those tax dollars helping americans in need.
here's an example. we can spend $531 million on some become six and 52 million on kenya, 625 million on nigeria or perhaps as much as 2 billion in new castle county and other damaged areas in delaware. we did spend 180 million on indonesia, 142 million in the philippines, 107 million in vietnam, 85 million in the republic of georgia or shift those sums to atlantic city and other places in new jersey. i hope to get the drift. we have people hurt in the united states of america but we also have a future that we have to look at cost. each time we spend money, we do not have, i would submit to the members of the committee that furthers the rest of the insolvency in bankruptcy and if that were to happen, it would debilitate the country so i request your consideration to the amendments i have before you.
>> thank you mr. chairman for your work tonight and at the time in reviewing these amendments. i offer today an amendment 73 to the rogers substitute regarding watershed protection funding for the states impacted three wildfires in the western united states over the course of 2012i believe he said the news programs around the country every senator on the tv station use all the news of the hurricanes and what was happening in florida or in new york or new jersey and connecticut but june of last year all that was on tv is what was happening in colorado and new mexico and oregon and wyoming and montana as hundreds of thousands of our federal land burned because of drug convictions and resulted in losses hundreds of tons of colorado for the loss of life and hundreds of millions of
dollars in colorado and beyond intact at the same time we watched as people of new york were seeing their neighbors' homes burned down or ravaged by floodwaters i recall the story of a gerber of firefighters in colorado who were sitting a local schoolhouse while they watched their homes burned down on the same mountain so this amendment asks for hundred 25 million for the emergency water protection program in the overall design of there is funding for connecticut through the waters protection program in the amendment restricted to those states asking for 125 million trustees a little like colorado estimated to require by $19.8 million for mitigating these burned areas and this is all going to go to good government as well because we know as a result of forest
fires it creates a condition called hydro's oil on the top player so any minister whether it is half an inch of rain it is going to create the erosion flow that will cause culverts, destroy the road and imperil the watershed and drinking water systems. for those of you that recall the disastrous in the air force academy it was evacuated. , are those things will be affected by the drink of water as a result of the canyon fire. over 300,000 people will be impacted as a result of the damage to the watershed on the federal land, so this amount trice to bring some aspects of the good government to the erosion control because once those occurred we are talking abut a threefold that would be the equivalent of a 100 year
storm the would be occurring every one to five years because of the burden of soil conditions fema will most likely cover the costs of at least part of the costa. so they will occur after the fact. they will provide a grant and money to mitigate after the fact to help the drinking water system after the damage has occurred but this is actually trying to provide help before the damage occurs and so i would ask for your support because our hearts go out to the people of new york, new jersey, connecticut who has suffered of the damages as a result of the hurricanes for other areas of this country who watched as their neighbors' homes burned down and their lives were lost and millions upon millions in a natural disaster. >> thank you for the opportunity and until you tell me differently i'm going to assume
we have the same rules as the chairman which less less is more when it comes to an amendment. >> [inaudible] stat i have three amendments i would like to do to of them because they are similar to the number four and five go to the rogers bill they are fairly simple. they both seek to different ways to offset the $17 billion of spending in the rogers still it's not the larger number it is just the 17 billion. member for is simple as it probably gets across-the-board discretionary cuts. i don't like them any more than anybody else does, but i operate under the theory the only thing worse is paying for it with across-the-board cuts. number five is much more targeted proposal that's offered by myself and mr. salinas --
scalise. this is a targeted offset the would be number one ending the subsidies for federal employees. member to the agricultural direct payment program and number three, prohibiting any further obligations under tarp. it doesn't come close to 17 billion during the first year but looks like it pays for itself over the -- it does offset when you look at the longer period of time. i encourage my friends across the aisle not to attribute any motives here we are trying not to delay the bill i happen to be one of the folks that believes emergency relief is one of the proper functions of the federal government. most of the folks up here with a hurricane areas. i had my office destroyed by a flood. i think it is a proper function of the government. the motive is as simple as it looks i want to try to find a
way to pay for it. this is important. it's a question. is it important enough to borrow the money from china to do it especially when we are already borrowing money from china to do so many other things? i hope the tragedy will allow us to come together in a rare instance to try to find a way to pay for something as opposed to running up the debt and if we have a chance to do what i think we have it here and if we don't i don't know where we would be able to do it because we would be united by the tragedy and non-slash it. the final amendment, the third 1i have is number six to which mr. garate from new jersey is joining and this is an accountability at the end of the program i would invite if that would be appropriate.
>> [inaudible] effective state and region and i am one that has not only traveled as many members do and visited to see these people and shake their hands and also to work in the area, put on her work boots and shuffled the debris and pulled down sheet rock and help people rebuild their homes and put together the gates to go down and make the homes habitable again and get the electric lines out and i say that not to pat myself on the back but to raise the specter as washington decides how we are going to spend other people's money i wonder how many as 535 people who will be voting have taken an hour out of their own time or a dollar out of their
own pocket and contributed time or money to these people. what we are doing here today with the accountability amendment is simply to say to that lady that i met who lived in a little house that is small early in the area behind that is a bigger house is for her family which is now destroyed and we helped to rebuild and she is looking for some assistance from washington if it can to make sure the money that we are voting on today actually lands in her house to put back up the sheet rock that we pulled out to put up the cabinets that we pulled down she doesn't want to hear reports that i've already heard anecdotally money is going out to people in high-rise apartments that have no damage who lived in apartments or places down the shore who were renters and don't qualify as the
anecdotal stories she is already hearing of the money is being wasted already does no good to say we get $60 billion or wherever it comes out to be if at the end of the day that money doesn't help that particular lady and to the point on the other amendments, most of us here have children or grandchildren when we guilaume today and on the floor we should be able to say to them we took care of that little old lady in that apartment or we took care of that family that needed assistance and we pay for it ourselves here out of washington and we should be able to look at our grandchildren and say we didn't put that debt on joost. we are willing to pay for it and not you. i wonder how many members will be able to go back foot vote the other way on this amendment and the bill the other way to say look at their grandkids and say kids and grandkids, you did a
good thing that you are paying for it, not me, and with that i think you for your consideration. >> we ask for members four, five and six. >> we won't go too far as long as -- it looks like he will not be here but missile -- ms. mulvaney will handle questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. does your amendment, number four, violated the rules of the house? >> i've been told it doesn't -- >> will you be requesting a special waiver on the amendment? >> i believe it is number 43 we were told it might be number five. >> so number for you need a waiver. >> it's one or the other and i don't remember which one.
>> on every occasion that i tried to request a waiver the answer i always get is the rules are the rules. so i would be interested to see how that turns out for u. i yield back my time. >> mr. bishop? >> i realize there is one amendment that is representative florez and not yours. it deals with the funding. for example, in his amendment, there is $150 million that goes to the regional ocean partnership grant program and much of that money could also be a part of the spatial plan that has nothing to do with this area in my role in looking at that money but would go to areas that
may be a nice program but this partnership would basically be going to planning and areas in the gulf coast at not necessarily on the east coast? >> as you can devise a i would completely agree with you that is out of what we are trying to achieve which is emergency funding for the new jersey area to go to order for those expenditures in. >> i was understanding that is what you're talking about that deals with programs in north carolina not hurt by the hurricane in west virginia. >> it is hit by a previous hurricane but nothing requested industrially for any other legislation since then. it pops up in hurricanes in the. >> thank you.
i appreciate it. >> do >> we meet with $35 million on each. thank you for checking me in that regard on the information that came first on the committee for appropriations and followed by or if not advanced by companies in the region that i served saying that there were funds and the measures of the $500 million in the construction account not specifically directed to the northland it division that can be used to repair store when damage in
florida and elsewhere. to that end of the assumption is a bad thing. the assumption is the money would be asked for by florida but i will stand corrected in that regard. i still think that the 500 million some of that came to the erosion from sandy i might add. a substantial portion has been met in the activity involving the funds and what is referred to as foreign affairs. i have seen some issues and some help in this nation and specific interest matters.
over the course of time you get an opportunity to go to some other locations where the funds are utilized and recognize that there are two factors that are ignored with a large portion of the money that we spend support american businesses in the region that are not looked at and they just found it easy to talk about. another portion of that deals primarily with the defense and security of the nation. >> we manage to go to africa in the north african region i recognized then and now talking 1996 there was an extraordinary effort for developing to resign and this is way before al qaeda.
one of our colleagues and a colleague of mine from west palm beach, the money for the defense department, the state department , for usaid and a number of things we were able to achieve that $50 million that in time if i get to talk to you i can show you exactly how much it helped us at that time to avoid certain aspects of the development of terrorism. it didn't achieve everything, but it certainly did help. so it isn't bad. there are relative aspects to anything and just a follow-on
$88 million of the basis, military bases and ammunition allowances that were hurt by hurricane sandy. if there was ever an agency that could reprogram some funds and use this $88 million to help people in the family the defense department certainly could do that with the fact we voted on a measure that was $159 billion more than was requested by the defense department so we figured out who's dealing with these things and while i agree with you, i don't know a division of the united states government that i couldn't along with you find some substantial abuse and i just want to passed on. >> i'm not saying it's bad.
i'm saying our country's financial condition is one we have to start conducting tree ghosh and make serious decisions that are going to have adverse effects no matter what the decision is, and the question is how can we minimize the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy in the federal government which again emphasized we have deep fact is you mentioned business and national defence if we continue on the path that we are going, american businesses would be devastated by an insolvency into bankruptcy in the federal government for the national defence and so that is trying to do whatever can be done to minimize that risk of insolvency and bankruptcy which from where i sit if we continue on the path that we are on there is an absolute 100% certainty of an american insolvency and bankruptcy unless we change the path.
>> thank you. i appreciate what i co-sponsored as well. i hope the committee based on his testimony will find this in order as well. it is a critical issue to our state and the western states in general. our state and the western states will never be hit by a hurricane ike. that isn't the kind of disaster that we face, but we did have a presidentially declared disaster in the last summer, and it's critical that we act to i want to ask mr. gardner to talk about the effect of the soil erosion and the damage to the watershed and potential flooding and some of the other risks if the congress strips out what was in the senate bill the last session and moves forward without this. >> thank you. thank you for the support. this is an amendment that has the support of republicans and democrats from the colorado delegation. $125 million to the protection program and what this will do is allow us to go into these areas
and it is in the heart of the drinking water systems of fort collins as colorado and the canyon fire for the city of corydon springs several military bases as well as the air force academy all seeing the effects from these fires so that money would be used in this case to stabilize. as mentioned before what happens in these areas is you have a very modest amount of moisture that creates significant flows going into an area whether it is the county road system, drinking water system that wasn't designed to handle the kind of flow that will result as a modest moisture event and in that case of the fire that burned around 88,000 acres with several hundred homes over 200 miles of road exist in this area, 300,000 people rely on drinking water from this area
you're talking about significant watersheds where this will come down and contaminate the culverts overran the highway's 200 miles. that's one thing so the other part of your question is the senate did include $125 million in the package they passed prior to the end of this congress the funding level that was supported by this administration for the purpose of this program. >> thank you the gentleman and dandridge the committee to allow the order and yelled back. >> thank you very much. i would like to if i could state the cold water delegation has done an exceptional job of bringing us to light. it's a difficult thing to deal with the fire, the aftermath and
interesting with the watershed damage is that you have done a very good job not just members of congress and the appropriations committee but also the administration to deal with this. i want to thank you for doing that. >> thank you mr. sherman. i want to ask the three of you that our offerings the offset amendments or reduction amendments in the case of dr. mac fleming my friend from massachusetts said earlier testimony he was absolutely right which we had these offset conversations when we were talking about the war spending and the dod spending, the implication be in the folks that support making those difficult but necessary financial decisions when it comes to disaster aid might be less supportive of grappling with the most difficult financial decisions when it comes to the military aid. i start with you. what i characterize it accurately as i said you are
only here because this is an emergency disaster funding and you wouldn't be here if this were emergency funding or would i be inaccurate in that characterization? >> i wouldn't be here if it were any type of spending. i think that you and i and several members of this panel of the rules committee joined together last year to get together to try to freeze the defense spending where it isn't paid for so this is nothing to do with where the money is going. it has to do it off budget. it's not in the budget this is an emergency spending so the question is are we going to pay for it or not. a traditional the it's not been paid for and i understand that and i understand that is the history. i would simply suggest that some point we have to start doing things differently than we have or else we will end up right where we are so i am sympathetic to the gentleman from florida said. i wouldn't be here if it was. we had the same conversations last year the cost of that
operation has nothing to do with the use of the money and this isn't a place in the bill designed for delay. it is what it is can we figured out a way to pay for it or not? >> can i ask you to answer that also? i know you represent a very strong military district there in north alabama. >> i believe we should pay for every expenditure that we are going to spend when you have a 16 trillion-dollar deficit on the path we are on however i would add a distinction between the disaster relief and national security. if we misjudge a national security matter as you know the united states of america and millions of people lost their lives. so you have to wait up as your decision whether to go into debt in order to fund a war effort, and that is a factor that is not there with every kind of expenditure. having said that, i prefer that whatever service the federal government is going to render including the national defence
be paid for. but if we can't get enough members in the state's house and senate and the white house to join together to pay for it and going into debt to avoid a military calamity as what we have to do, then i am for going in the debt to avoid that military calamity because the military coup led the interest means the loss of many lives. i'm paraphrasing. he said this coming together to support our neighbors in the northeast would be something was bringing us together rather than dividing us. i think back to our budget committee discussions two years ago when the gentleman from maryland on the budget committee offered an amendment to overbudget that said the defense has a fair share of the burden, and we need to make sure that every line item in the defense budget is being scrutinized in the same way that he scrutinizing every item of this disaster budget and i believe i am characterizing it correctly
when i say that mr. mulvaney and others on the committee supported that amendment and came together and we passed that amendment to make sure that the defense was an important part of that. i say that because it's hard when families are hurting to talk about balancing things and every family in my district picked up their checkbooks and sent a check made that decision, they decided to submit $100 to help out sandy victims was more important than that 100 bucks they were going to spend on dinner or more important than taking an extra trip to see grand blanc. maybe those priority decisions one thing that's different to think about regular order is that historical these bills have been much smaller. i went back and looked at fy 12 appropriations, 12 appropriations bills in this
congress and if the amendment passes, this appropriations bill, this emergency spending bill will be a larger than nine of the 12th traditional appropriations bills that we do, they traditionally get scrutinized in the open process, one of them at the time just like dr. clemens is proposing it takes place over a series of days and weeks to scrutinize each one of those this bill is larger than three appropriations il's combined that's why i support the tremendous effort to shrink it down. he said in his testimony in response to the concerns about colorado that he thought there was all ready pool of money out there that can be accessed for this purpose. did you have a chance to speak with him about that? >> no, thank you. i believe in fiscal year 2012 there is according to the
information i have from the crs about to enter a $15.9 million appropriated to the emergency watershed protection program nationwide. that fund was exhausted very quickly as a result of the hundreds of thousands of acres that burned in the colorado and the western united states. and in the bill he is also adding an additional $150 million for the same except programs that we are asking for here except his amendment restricting it to new york - jersey and connecticut. senate are the dollars and that fund dedicated to these mitigation efforts on federal land only or are they available to the public at large for these mitigation efforts?
>> combination of public and private. roughly half and half federal land that burned. i mentioned the number of roads and the two entered miles of roads exist and that one area. in colorado and 40 miles of the service rose to read the protection has been used in the past and the wild fire seasons believe it was $2,004,150,000,000 was appropriated to provide relief for california wild fires in 2006 hurricane katrina received a $50 million through the emergency watershed protection program for the disaster assistance and then would point out as well some components do
have a local cost share requirement and the permitting requirements of the local government as well. >> thank you. >> it was never easy to make spending cuts decisions once we had a dissolved as a long time ago and in fact it wouldn't be in this predicament today, but i just want to associate myself with the gentleman from south carolina. if we cannot come together today and talk about what we are willing to give up of our own so that those of us in new jersey and new york that have lost everything can be aided by don't know when we will have the stomach to make those decisions lot about what we need but about what we can do for others i will yield back. >> mr. sherman thank you for such sought out